The above Listener extract highlights a curious anomaly relating to Malcolm Bailey's reply to an offer of help which was halfway (24 January 1998) through the period described. Mr Bailey stated that drought mitigation methods would cost "considerable sums of money" and rejected the offer without enquiring whether any charge would be imposed!

His spurious claim is compounded when the losses sustained by farmers and the national economy for the the period after our communication are calculated. If farmers could not afford drought mitigation in January 1998, then how could they afford the additional losses of $$ several hundred million by December? This inconsistency raises serious doubts about Mr Bailey's integrity and leadership. Farmers seeking to place blame for their economic woes need look no further than the ineptitude of their executive members. The drought was only part of the problem.

Could the real reason be that Mr. Bailey and Fed Farmers were afraid that TWM might be successful? Were they concerned that they might become dependent upon Indigenous technology to survive? Were they anxious to avoid the issue of ownership of the weather, and water as a by-product?

Whatever it was that Fed Farmers expected to achieve by ignoring the offer, they certainly paid a high price for it. But then, they are not the only organization to display cultural arrogance and insensitivity only to be deliberately frustrated by weather events that were beyond their control. Negative attitudes engender negative consequences.

This was TWM's first major exercise in prolonging drought.
 

Comment: Mr Bailey was given the above posting eighteen months after his decision to decline weather modification which incurred preventable drought costs of several billion dollars for the national economy.